## Kli Yakar on Genesis Chapter 40

###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:1
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:1:1)

**חָטְאוּ מַשְׁקֵה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם וְהָאוֹפֶה.** מִתְּחִלָּה קָרָא אוֹתָם ״מַשְׁקֵה״ וְ״אוֹפֶה״, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נֶאֱמַר ״וַיִּקְצֹף פַּרְעֹה עַל שְׁנֵי סָרִיסָיו עַל שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים וְעַל שַׂר הָאוֹפִים״ (בראשית מ:ב). וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמִּנְהַג הָעוֹלָם הוּא שֶׁכָּל שַׂר יֵשׁ לוֹ מְשָׁרְתִים לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ הַמְשָׁרְתִים לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּכָל עֵת, וְהֵמָּה בְּעַצְמָם יְשָׁרְתוּהוּ לִפְרָקִים בִּסְעוּדָה גְּדוֹלָה דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד. וְחֵטְא זֶה לֹא חָטְאוּ הַשָּׂרִים כִּי אִם מְשָׁרְתֵיהֶם הַמַּשְׁקֶה וְהָאוֹפֶה, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם הָיָה עִקַּר הַקֶּצֶף עַל הַשָּׂרִים שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ הֶדְיוֹטִים כָּאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא נִזְהֲרוּ בִּכְבוֹד הַמֶּלֶךְ. וּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר אֵצֶל הַחֲלוֹם ״הַמַּשְׁקֶה וְהָאוֹפֶה״ וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן ״שַׂר״, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְהוֹרוֹת כִּי אִם מַהוּת הַחֲלוֹם כָּל אֶחָד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, זֶה מֵעִנְיְנֵי מַשְׁקֶה וְזֶה מֵעִנְיְנֵי אֲפִיָּה.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**The cupbearer and baker of the king of Egypt sinned.** Initially, they were called [simply] *cupbearer* and *baker* but afterwards it states *Pharaoh became angry with his two courtiers, with the chief cupbearer and chief baker.* Some say this reflects the common practice where every chief official has subordinates serving under them who serve the king regularly, while the chiefs themselves would serve only occasionally at grand feasts as a matter of honor. This sin was not committed by the chiefs but rather by their subordinates — the cupbearer and baker. Nevertheless, the main anger was directed at the chiefs for appointing such common people who were not careful with the king’s honor. And regarding the dream, where it mentions [simply] *the cupbearer and baker* without the title “chief,” this is because it only needed to indicate the nature of the dream, each according to their occupation — one concerning drinks and one concerning baking.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:2
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:1:2)

וְלִי נִרְאֶה לְיַשֵּׁב זֶה, עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בִּבְרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (פח ב) פְּלִיגֵי רַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר. רַבָּנַן אָמְרֵי: זֶה נִמְצָא זְבוּב בְּכוֹס שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה נִמְצָא צְרוֹר בִּגְלוֹסְקָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְרַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר אוֹמֵר: בִּקְשׁוּ לְהִזְדַּוֵּג לְבִתּוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ כוּ׳. וְרַשִׁ״י הִסְכִּים לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּנַן. וְנִרְאֶה שֶׁרְאָיָתוֹ מִמָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מַשְׁקֶה״ וְ״אוֹפֶה״ וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן ״שַׂר״, לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה חֶטְאָם תָּלוּי בִּשְׂרָרָתָם. וְחֵטְא זֶה שֶׁבִּקְשׁוּ לְהִזְדַּוֵּג לְבִתּוֹ תָּלוּי בְּלִי סָפֵק בְּמָה שֶׁהָיוּ שָׂרִים וְנִכְבָּדִים, עַל כֵּן בִּקְשׁוּ לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ וּלְהִזְדַּוֵּג לְבִתּוֹ מִצַּד שֶׁגָּבַהּ לִבָּם עַד לְהַשְׁחִית. לְכָךְ קְרָאָם סְתָם ״מַשְׁקֶה״ וְ״אוֹפֶה״, בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת זְכִירַת הַחֵטְא בֵּין בִּזְכִירַת הַחֲלוֹם, וְטַעַם אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵיהֶם: לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁחֶטְאָם הָיָה עַל עִסְקֵי מַשְׁקֶה וַאֲפִיָּה, וְלֹא הָיָה חֵטְא הַתָּלוּי בִּשְׂרָרָתָם. וְכֵן בַּחֲלוֹם קְרָאָם כֵּן, לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁהַחֲלוֹם הָיָה מֵעִסְקֵי מַשְׁקֶה וַאֲפִיָּה.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And it seems to me to resolve this as follows:** We find in Genesis Rabbah (88:2) a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Evyatar. The Rabbis say that [regarding the sin of Pharaoh’s officers] one was found with a fly in his cup and the other was found with a pebble in his bread roll. Rabbi Evyatar says they attempted to be intimate with the king’s daughter. Rashi agrees with the Rabbis’ opinion. It appears that his proof comes from the fact that the verse refers to them as *cupbearer* and *baker* without mentioning the title “chief,” indicating that their sin was not connected to their positions of authority. For this sin of attempting to be intimate with [the king’s] daughter would undoubtedly be connected to their being chiefs and dignitaries, as they sought to lay hands on the king [by attempting relations with] his daughter due to their hearts being haughtily corrupted. Therefore, the text simply calls them *cupbearer* and *baker* both when mentioning their sin and when recounting their dreams. The same reason applies to both instances — to indicate that their sin was related to matters of drink-serving and baking, and was not a sin connected to their positions of authority. Similarly, in the dream they are called this way to indicate that the dream was about matters of drink-serving and baking.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:3
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:1:3)

וּמִטַּעַם זֶה נֶאֱמַר ״חָטְאוּ מַשְׁקֵה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם וְהָאוֹפֶה״ (בראשית מ:א), וְקָשֶׁה לְעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִתְנִינְהוּ ״חָטְאוּ מַשְׁקֵה וְהָאוֹפֶה״, לָמָּה הִכְנִיס ״מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם״ בֵּין הַדְּבֵקִים? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד חָטָא בָּעִנְיָן עַצְמוֹ, זֶה בִּזְבוּב וְזֶה בִּצְרוֹר. וּכְפִי הַנִּרְאֶה שֶׁפְּשִׁיעַת הַצְּרוֹר גָּדוֹל מִפְּשִׁיעַת הַזְּבוּב, כִּי זְבוּב אוּנְסָא וּצְרוֹר פְּשִׁיעוּתָא. עַל כֵּן נֶאֱמַר ״מַשְׁקֵה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם״, כִּי אִלּוּ עָשָׂה זֶה לְאָדָם אַחֵר לֹא הָיָה נִקְרָא פּוֹשֵׁעַ, כִּי קָרוֹב לְאֹנֶס הַדָּבָר, אַךְ לַמֶּלֶךְ הוּא פְּשִׁיעָה, כִּי בִּכְבוֹד הַמֶּלֶךְ צָרִיךְ לְדַקְדֵּק בְּיוֹתֵר. אֲבָל חֵטְא הָאוֹפֶה הָיָה גָּדוֹל מִנְּשׂוֹא אֲפִלּוּ אִם הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה כֵן לְאָדָם אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֶלֶךְ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר סְתָם ״וְהָאוֹפֶה״ וְלֹא אָמַר ״אוֹפֶה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם״. וּ״פַרְעֹה קָצַף עַל שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים״ (בראשית מ:ב) – הִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן שְׂרָרָה אֵצֶל הַקֶּצֶף, כִּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְדַקְדֵּק עִם הַצַּדִּיקִים כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה יוֹתֵר מִמָּה שֶׁמְּדַקְדֵּק עִם אָדָם אַחֵר, כָּךְ שָׂרִים אֵלּוּ, מִצַּד הֱיוֹתָם שָׂרִים וּקְרוֹבִים לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּיוֹתֵר, הָיָה לָהֶם לְהִזָּהֵר בִּכְבוֹד הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְאִלּוּ הָיוּ הֶדְיוֹטִים לֹא יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶם הַקֶּצֶף כָּל כָּךְ, וְזֶה פֵּרוּשׁ יָקָר.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And for this reason it states “the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned,”** and it is difficult [to understand] — why not combine them and state “the cupbearer and the baker sinned” — why insert *king of Egypt* between them? Rather, this certainly comes to teach that each one sinned in their own distinct matter — this one with a fly and this one with a pebble. And it appears that the negligence regarding the pebble was greater than the negligence regarding the fly, because a fly is considered an unavoidable accident while a pebble is considered negligence. Therefore it states *cupbearer of the king of Egypt* because if he had done this to another person, he would not have been called negligent, as it was close to being an unavoidable accident, but for the king it was negligence because one must be extremely precise regarding the king’s honor. However, the baker’s sin was unbearably great even if he had done so to another person who wasn’t king, therefore it simply states *the baker* and doesn’t say “baker of the king of Egypt.” And [when it says] *Pharaoh was angry with the chief cupbearer“* — it mentions the term of authority in connection with the anger, because just as the Holy One, Blessed be He is more exacting with the righteous to a hairsbreadth than He is with others, so too these officials, by virtue of being officials and especially close to the king, should have been more careful with the king’s honor. And if they had been common people, such anger would not have come upon them — and this is a precious interpretation.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:11:1
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:11:1)

**וְכוֹס פַּרְעֹה בְּיָדִי.** בִּבְרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (פח ה) אָמְרוּ: מִכָּאן תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת בְּפֶסַח, כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים ״כּוֹס״ שֶׁנִּזְכְּרוּ כָּאן. וְיֵשׁ לִתְמֹהַּ: מַה הֶרְאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְשַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים בָּזֶה, וּמַה עִנְיַן אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת שֶׁל פֶּסַח לַחֲלוֹמוֹ שֶׁל שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים? וְנִרְאֶה לִי, כִּי יָדוּעַ שֶׁשְּׁתִיַּת הַכּוֹס מוֹרָה עַל הַתְּשׁוּעָה מֵאֵיזוֹ צָרָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (תהלים קטז יג) ״כּוֹס יְשׁוּעוֹת אֶשָּׂא״, וְאַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת שֶׁל פֶּסַח יוֹכִיחוּ. וְכָל שָׁבוּי סְבָבוּהוּ אַרְבַּע מִשְׁפָּחוֹת הָרָעוֹת שֶׁנִּזְכְּרוּ בְּסֵפֶר יִרְמְיָה (ירמיה טו ב): ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֲשֶׁר לַחֶרֶב לַחֶרֶב וַאֲשֶׁר לַמָּוֶת לַמָּוֶת וַאֲשֶׁר לָרָעָב לָרָעָב וַאֲשֶׁר לַשְּׁבִי לַשֶּׁבִי״. וּבְבָבָא בַּתְרָא (ח:) אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּל הַמְאֻחָר בַּפָּסוּק קָשֶׁה מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו כוּ׳, עַד ״שְׁבִי״ – כּוּלְּהוּ אִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ. כִּי בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אֲדוֹנוֹ לְיַסְּרוֹ בַּחֶרֶב, וְלַהֲמִיתוֹ, וּלְהַרְעִיבוֹ, וּלְעַנּוֹתוֹ בְּעִנְיַן בֵּית הַסֹּהַר. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁכָּל שָׁבוּי שֶׁבְּבֵית הַבּוֹר, כְּשֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת שֶׁל יְשׁוּעָה, כִּי מֵאַחַר שֶׁשְּׁבִי כּוּלְּהוּ אִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ, אִם כֵּן בִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִשָּׁם מִבֵּית הַסֹּהַר הוּא נִצּוֹל מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן. עַל כֵּן נִזְכַּר בְּשַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים אַרְבַּע פְּעָמִים לְשׁוֹן ״כּוֹס״, כִּי הֶרְאָה לוֹ בַּחֲלוֹם שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן בֵּית הַבּוֹר וְיִהְיֶה נִצּוֹל מֵאַרְבַּע רָעוֹת אֵלּוּ, וְיִהְיֶה רָאוּי לִשְׁתּוֹת אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת שֶׁל יְשׁוּעָה. וְאִם כֵּן לָמְדוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִכָּאן שֶׁבְּפֶסַח חַיָּב כָּל אָדָם לִשְׁתּוֹת אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת, כִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ גַּם כֵּן שְׁבוּיִים בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְהַשָּׁבוּי כּוּלְּהוּ אִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ, עַל כֵּן דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוּ אַרְבַּע כּוֹסוֹת שֶׁל יְשׁוּעָה כְּנֶגֶד הַהַצָּלָה מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן, כִּי לֹא אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בִּלְבָד גָּאַל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמִּצְרַיִם, כִּי אַף אוֹתָנוּ גָּאַל עִמָּהֶם. וְזֶה פֵּרוּשׁ יָקָר. וּמִכָּאן שָׁפַט יוֹסֵף בְּשִׂכְלוֹ שֶׁשַּׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים יֵצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֹּהַר וְיוּשַׁב עַל כַּנּוֹ, אֲבָל שַׂר הָאוֹפִים לֹא רָאָה בוֹ דָּבָר הַמּוֹרֶה עַל גְּאוּלָּתוֹ וְעַל פְּדוּת נַפְשׁוֹ.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**“And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand.”** In Genesis Rabbah (88:5), they said from here the Sages instituted the four cups of wine on Passover, corresponding to the four times the word “cup” is mentioned here. One must wonder what did the Holy One, Blessed be He, show the chief butler in this, and what is the connection between the four cups of Passover and the chief butler’s dream? It seems to me that it is known that drinking from a cup symbolizes salvation from some trouble, as it is written *I will lift up the cup of salvation* (Psalms 116:13), and the four cups of Passover prove this. Every prisoner is surrounded by four evil families that are mentioned in the book of Jeremiah (15:2): *Thus says the Lord: Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for famine, to famine; and those for captivity, to captivity.* And in Bava Batra (8b), Rabbi Yochanan said that each punishment mentioned later in the verse is harder than the previous one, until captivity, which includes them all. For it is in the master’s hand to punish him with the sword, to kill him, to starve him, and to afflict him with imprisonment. Thus, every prisoner in the dungeon, when he leaves prison, it is appropriate that he should drink four cups of salvation. Since captivity includes all the other afflictions, when he leaves the prison he is saved from all four. Therefore, the word “cup” is mentioned four times regarding the chief butler, for it was shown to him in the dream that he would leave the dungeon and be saved from these four evils, and would be worthy of drinking four cups of salvation. Consequently, our Sages learned from here that on Passover every person is obligated to drink four cups, because the Israelites were also captives in Egypt, and captivity includes all other afflictions. Therefore, it is appropriate that they drink four cups of salvation corresponding to being saved from all four afflictions, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not only redeem our ancestors from Egypt, but He redeemed us with them as well. This is a precious interpretation. From here Joseph judged with his intellect that the chief butler would leave prison and return to his position, but regarding the chief baker, he saw nothing indicating his redemption and the ransom of his soul.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:11:2
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:11:2)

וְאוּלַי זֶהוּ כַּוָּנַת רז״ל, בְּמַה שֶּׁדָּרְשׁוּ (חולין צב) ״וּבַגֶּפֶן שְׁלֹשָה שָׂרִיגִים״ (בראשית מ:י) – שְׁלֹשָה שָׂרֵי גוֹיִם כוּ׳, אוֹ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב כוּ׳, וְנִדְרְשׁוּ בְּכַמָּה פָּנִים שׁוֹנִים עַל הַצְלָחָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמַה הֶרְאוּ לְשַׂר הַמַּשְׁקֶה בָּזֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ סִבַּת גְּאוּלָּתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִבֵּית הַשְּׁבִי, וּגְאוּלָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל יוֹסֵף הָיְתָה עַל יְדֵי שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים, וְעַל יָדוֹ זָכָה יוֹסֵף לְכָל הַיִּעוּדִים הָהֵם, וְקַל לְהָבִין.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And perhaps this is the intention of our Sages of blessed memory,** in their interpretation (in Tractate Chullin 92) of *and in the vine were three branches [sarigim]* [as referring to] three ministers of nations [*sarei* goyim], etc., or Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., and it was interpreted in several different ways regarding the success of Israel. And what did they show to the chief cupbearer in this? Rather, all these are the cause of Israel’s redemption from captivity, and the first redemption of Joseph was through the chief cupbearer, and through him Joseph merited all those destinies, and this is easy to understand.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:23:1
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:23:1)

**וְלֹא זָכַר שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיִּשְׁכָּחֵהוּ.** כִּי עֲבֵרָה גּוֹרֶרֶת עֲבֵרָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָלָה יוֹסֵף בְּזִכְרוֹנוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא זְכָרוֹ בִּפְנֵי פַרְעֹה לְטוֹבָה, וְזֶה גָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁלְּסוֹף שְׁכָחוֹ לְגַמְרֵי, וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּזִכְרוֹנוֹ לֹא עָלָה. וְעַל אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֲבֵרוֹת אָמַר ״אֶת חֲטָאַי אֲנִי מַזְכִּיר הַיּוֹם״ (בראשית מא:ט), הַיְינוּ שְׁנֵי חֲטָאִים אֵלּוּ, מַה שֶּׁחָטָא לְיוֹסֵף וּלְפַרְעֹה. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה אָמְרוּ (בראשית רבה פט, ג) שֶׁיּוֹסֵף חָטָא בָּזֶה שֶׁתָּלָה בִּטְחוֹנוֹ בְּשַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים, וְאָמַר שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים לְשׁוֹן זְכִירָה: ״כִּי אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי״ וְגוֹ׳ (בראשית מ:יד), ״וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי״ וְגוֹ׳ (שם), וּכְנֶגְדָּם נֶעֱנַשׁ בְּכֶפֶל הַשִּׁכְחָה: ״וְלֹא זָכַר שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיִּשְׁכָּחֵהוּ״ (בראשית מ:כג).

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him.** Since one transgression leads to another transgression, initially, even though Joseph came to his mind, nevertheless he did not mention him favorably before Pharaoh. This [first transgression] led him to eventually forget Joseph completely, such that he didn’t even come to mind. Regarding these two transgressions, he [the cupbearer] said *I recall my sins today*, referring to these two sins — the sin against Joseph and against Pharaoh. Our Sages of blessed memory said (Genesis Rabbah 89:3) that Joseph sinned in this matter by placing his trust in the chief cupbearer, and he used the language of remembrance twice: *remember me* and *mention me*. Correspondingly, he was punished with a double forgetting: *the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him*.


###### Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:23:2
[Kli Yakar on Genesis 40:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Genesis/r/40:23:2)

וְעַל צַד הָרֶמֶז נוּכַל לוֹמַר, כִּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר יוֹסֵף ״אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי״ וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תְּנַאי, כְּאִלּוּ אָמַר ״אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי יֵשׁ תִּקְוָה, וְאִם לֹא אָבְדָה הַתִּקְוָה״, נִמְצָא שֶׁשְּׁנֵי תֵיבוֹת אֵלּוּ כּוֹלְלִים עִקַּר הֶעָוֹן. עַל כֵּן כְּנֶגְדָּם יָצָא בַּת קוֹל וְאָמַר ״תִּשְׁכַּח״, כִּי ״תִּשְׁכַּח״ עוֹלֶה לְמִסְפַּר ״אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי״. וְעַל כֵּן נִתַּן הַדִּין שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָסוּר עוֹד שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, כִּי יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שס״ה יָמִים, שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים שס״ה עוֹלֶה תש״ל כְּמִסְפַּר ״תִּשְׁכַּח״. וְעַל כֵּן הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָסוּר עוֹד שְׁנָתַיִם יָמִים, כִּי ״מִקֵּץ שְׁנָתַיִם יָמִים״ (בראשית מא:א) מוֹרֶה שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁנִים שְׁלֵמִים מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם כְּדֵי לְמַלֹּאות מִסְפַּר ״תִּשְׁכַּח״, וְעוֹד שְׁנֵי יָמִים הַנּוֹסָפִים כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי תֵּיבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמַר ״וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי״ ״וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי״. וְזֶה יוֹתֵר מְחֻוָּר מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ קְצָתָם שֶׁשְּׁתֵּי שָׁנִים אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד שְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת אֵלּוּ, וְקָשֶׁה לָמָּה דַּוְקָא שָׁנִים וְלֹא חֳדָשִׁים אוֹ יָמִים. וּלְהַנָּחָתֵנוּ יִהְיוּ בֶּאֱמֶת שְׁנֵי יָמִים כְּנֶגְדָּם, וְיִתְבָּאֵר זֶה עוֹד בְּסָמוּךְ פָּרָשַׁת מִקֵּץ בעז״ה.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And regarding this allusion we can say** that at the time when Joseph said *if you remember me* — which is conditional language, as if saying “if you remember me there is hope, and if not, hope is lost” — we find that these two words contain the essence of the sin. Therefore, corresponding to them, a heavenly voice came forth and said “*tishkach*” [you will forget], because “*tishkach*” has the same numerical value as *im zechartani [if you remember me]*. Therefore, it was decreed that he would remain imprisoned for two more years, because the days of the year are 365 days, and twice 365 equals 730, which is the numerical value of “*tishkach*.” Thus, justice demanded that he remain imprisoned for two more years, as *at the end of two years* indicates that they were complete years from day to day in order to fulfill the numerical value of “*tishkach*,” plus two additional days corresponding to the two words he said: *remember me* and *take me out*. This explanation is clearer than what some have said that these two years correspond to these two words, for it would be difficult to understand why specifically years and not months or days. According to our explanation, there were indeed two days corresponding to them, and this will be further explained shortly in Parashat Miketz, God willing.